There are 99 comments on the
Pravda
story from Feb 22, 2013, titled The hope of evolutionists.
In it, Pravda reports that:

The recent media splash about finding the hypothetical common ancestor of all mammals is based upon nothing more than the evolutionary argument that DNA and biological similarities between species is evidence for common ancestry.

Computer simulations of complex systems - even the three body system - are progressively less reliable the further forward you predict.

Where is your proof of that? Aren't you outside your area of expertise?

Chimney1 wrote:

Where bifurcation events can occur - and they can in almost any complex system, predictability falls to zero pretty quickly. Your only hope of perfect prediction in that case would be perfect measurement. Heisenburg rules that out anyway.

Obviously the collisions of point masses under an inverse square force would be a problem so, as they say, "Don't do that."

Once again you have forgotten that you have misunderstood the physics of a Newtonian universe. Just as soon as you specified the mathematical model to be Newtonian, then the subject had nothing to do with the Heisenburg universe and the measurement problem.

Once again you have forgotten that you have misunderstood the physics of a Newtonian universe. Just as soon as you specified the mathematical model to be Newtonian, then the subject had nothing to do with the Heisenburg universe and the measurement problem.

No, this post makes it clear that YOU do not even understand the point.

The measurement problem still exists in the Newtonian universe, as measurement to anything less than infinite accuracy can still lead to a bifurcation in a Newtonian 3-body problem sooner or later.

However, the complementary point I made with regards to Heisenburg is that we now know its not only impossible to measure with perfect accuracy in practice, its even impossible in principle.

Further strengthening the need to accept the limitations of mathematical modelling and understand that Darwinian style heuristics may be "as good as it gets" in complex systems, and as good as it needs to be. Darwin led to profound news ways to look at complex, evolving systems...ways you do not appreciate precisely because you are locked into a mentality that ranks mathematical formalism above rational empirical science. When in fact, as far as science is concerned, maths is merely a tool of varying utility.

As in oaktrees and humans.Coherent Behavior and the Bound State of Water and K+ Imply Another Model of Bioenergetics: Negative Entropy Instead of High-energy BondsLaurent Jaeken*,1 and Vladimir Vasilievich Matveev2Special water.Why are we not aware? Because bio-photons work faster over the lattice structure we have. Unlike mathematics, physics has to work with tangible real life.Fascinating read. Revindication of Ling.quote:7.Finally, Ho [49], pursuing the idea that coherence ought to be reflected in its structural organization down to the atomic and molecular level, went to the polarizing microscope and indeed directly observed the structural coherence of entire living cells, even organs in living organisms, proving that Schrödingers early proposal was fully justified. Ho [49] and Abbott [112] reviewed the indications that living organisms are indeed quantum coherent and can be regarded as macroscopic quantum systems. Recently, the existence of quantum coherence was directly measured in several in vitro experiments on parts of the photosynthetic apparatus [113-116].

In view of all these lines of evidence, direct and indirect, and the strong theoretical foundations from so many different independent approaches, which all point in the same direction, the coherent behavior of life can no longer be dismissed. Moreover, applications are quickly being made, particularly in diagnostic and therapeutic medicine, as there are increasingly strong indications that the lack of a sufficient level of coherence is the primary cause of cancer [117]. Genetic defects appear to originate later and secondarily as a result of insufficient coherence, which in a non-specific and progressive way destabilizes molecular and gene regulatory networks [117]. Despite all this evidence for coherence, together with the evidence for adsorption and polarization of water and adsorption of K+ to cell-matrix proteins , there is a major persistent obstruction to the uptake of these data by general textbooks and university courses. This obstruction is the persistence of MT. Therefore some additional evidence against an important aspect of MT, the concept of the Na+/K+ pump, must properly be given.

6. Evidence Against the Concept of Pumps The lines of evidence discussed below are not against the existence of Na+/K+-ATPase, nor against the main steps of its working mechanism as it is understood at present [27], but against the way of thinking about this enzyme/transporter as the pump responsible for the steady state concentrations of Na+ and K+ in cytosol.

Evidence against the pump hypothesis properly includes the following.:

Further strengthening the need to accept the limitations of mathematical modelling and understand that Darwinian style heuristics ...

Mathematical modeling is science, story telling is not.

"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work."  John von Neumann.

"Contrary to what I once thought, scientific progress did not consist simply in observing, in accurately formulating experimental facts and drawing up a theory from them. It began with the invention of a possible world, or a fragment thereof, which was then compared by experimentation with the real world. And it was this constant dialogue between imagination and experiment that allowed one to form an increasingly fine-grained conception of what is called reality."  François Jacob, as quoted in William Calvin's The Cerebral Symphony.

<quoted text>In other words, you're incredibly ignorant of the world and that's why you revel in natural selection, which is so brain-numbing of a near empty idea that it doesn't even pass the threshold of anecdote.

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>I have never claimed to be an expert in biology. Frankly, I can barely remember anything about the one course I took in biology.

<quoted text>Mathematical modeling is science, story telling is not."The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work."  John von Neumann."Contrary to what I once thought, scientific progress did not consist simply in observing, in accurately formulating experimental facts and drawing up a theory from them. It began with the invention of a possible world, or a fragment thereof, which was then compared by experimentation with the real world. And it was this constant dialogue between imagination and experiment that allowed one to form an increasingly fine-grained conception of what is called reality."  François Jacob, as quoted in William Calvin's The Cerebral Symphony.

Yeah, you know what ... nuh uh. You can state half-truths, that does not make them real. Mathematical models are only science when they coincide with actual facts. Just because 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't meant that one organism plus another organism equals two organisms ... actually it generally equal three or more.

<quoted text>Mathematical modeling is science, story telling is not."The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work."  John von Neumann."Contrary to what I once thought, scientific progress did not consist simply in observing, in accurately formulating experimental facts and drawing up a theory from them. It began with the invention of a possible world, or a fragment thereof, which was then compared by experimentation with the real world. And it was this constant dialogue between imagination and experiment that allowed one to form an increasingly fine-grained conception of what is called reality."  François Jacob, as quoted in William Calvin's The Cerebral Symphony.

BTW, your second quote is not even consistent with your claim.

And FYI, Von Neumann had no problem with the concept of a self replicating automaton developing increased complexity through evolution.

<quoted text>BTW, your second quote is not even consistent with your claim.And FYI, Von Neumann had no problem with the concept of a self replicating automaton developing increased complexity through evolution.

My philosophy of science is consistent. And like Von Neumann, I too have no problem conceptualizing immortal beings that continually gain knowledge throughout all eternity.

<quoted text>My philosophy of science is consistent. And like Von Neumann, I too have no problem conceptualizing immortal beings that continually gain knowledge throughout all eternity.

I am sure you have no problem conceptualising pink unicorns either.

The question is whether they exist in the actual universe or not.

And do you posit your "eternity" as extending back into the past as well? If so, can they continue to gain knowledge if their knowledge is already infinite, since part of their infinite knowledge would be, paradoxically, the knowledge of everything they had yet to learn? Or are such being actually not locked inside time anyway, making your whole proposal meaningless?

Aside from such metphysical ruminations, as you know, Von Neumann had no problem with the concept of evolving self replicating automata...and he meant actually evolving, not "devolving Shubee style". I make the point only because if you are going to facetiously quote from authority to try and bolster your argument, you should be honest about the actual views of the person you presume to quote. Its typical of creationists to lie by ommission in this way.

I make the point only because if you are going to facetiously quote from authority to try and bolster your argument, you should be honest about the actual views of the person you presume to quote. Its typical of creationists to lie by ommission in this way.

This is one thing that evolutionists don't understand: Truth is modular and I have every right to agree with whoever I wish on one or more pieces of truth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.